Soft Paper Report

Key Takeaways

• Soft paper reports lack credibility and should be verified for accuracy.
• The term "soft paper report" is derived from its use as toilet paper.
• Reports are often subjective; always verify facts before relying on them.
• A 1992 GAO report highlighted NASA's unreliable financial data, branding them as soft paper reports.
• Deficiencies in NASA's financial controls resulted in mismanagement of billions in funds and assets.
• Get personalized, AI-powered answers built on 27+ years of trusted expertise.

What Is a Soft Paper Report?

A soft paper report refers to a lack of confidence in a report's facts or a general disrespect for a report's author. A soft paper report has only one use—as toilet paper—which is how its name was derived. A real-world example was the NASA soft paper report in 1992.

It's critically important to verify report contents for accurate financial management and planning. Understanding report credibility is crucial for financial decision-making.

Analyzing the Concept of Soft Paper Reports

Reports are almost always subjective, as even hard facts have to be interpreted. In business, it is important not to rely on everything you hear and read, and instead to do a little homework yourself. Otherwise you could find yourself relying on a report that is only good for toilet paper.

Real-World Example: GAO's Critique of NASA's Reports

In an Oct. 1992 report to Congress by the U.S. General Accounting Office, the GAO accused NASA of producing financial reports that were based on unreliable data. In other words, the GAO accused NASA of producing soft paper financial reports.1

The GAO found that NASA's internal controls and financial management systems did not provide accurate and reliable financial information for effective management of the agency, especially when it came to oversight of the substantial amount of assets and funds under the control of its contractors. The report discussed in detail the deficiencies in NASA's financial systems and controls that contributed to the financial management weaknesses along with recommendations for corrective actions.2

Specifically, the GAO report indicated that NASA's internal controls, policies and procedures, and financial management systems did not provide adequate assurance that its nearly $14 billion appropriations allocated in fiscal year 1991 were properly used and accurately accounted for and reported. For instance, contractor-reported cost and performance data was not always received, and program analysts inappropriately adjusted contractor cost data without supporting documentation. In some cases, these practices served to conceal cost overruns, underruns, and instances where costs exceeded obligations or budget plans.2

For example, the GAO identified one case where cost reports showed significant cost growth for developing the space shuttle's waste collections systems, but it only took limited action to control costs until the GAO identified a 900% increase over the initial estimate. In addition, it said NASA's internal controls did not ensure that its reported $13.4 billion in government-owned, contractor-held property was properly accounted for or that its reported value was accurate.3

This situation presented a major problem because NASA managers used contractor-reported cost data as a primary source of information to manage billions of dollars in contractor-operated programs and projects, establish and update accounts payable, and determine budget needs.